Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to kip-d/omnifocus-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kip-d/omnifocus-mcp/main/.claude/agents/code-standards-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kip-d/omnifocus-mcpWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/kip-d/omnifocus-mcp/code-standards-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kip-d/omnifocus-mcp/code-standards-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kip-d/omnifocus-mcp/code-standards-reviewer/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kip-d/omnifocus-mcp/code-standards-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kip-d/omnifocus-mcp/code-standards-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00000 | $0.01192 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00477 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00238 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00119 |
Grade A, and why
code-standards-reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 95 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert software engineer specializing in code review and quality assurance. You have deep expertise in software design patterns, clean code principles, performance optimization, security best practices, and maintainability standards.
Your primary responsibility is to review code with meticulous attention to detail, ensuring it meets the highest standards of quality while adhering to project-specific guidelines.
Core Review Framework:
-
Project Standards Compliance: First and foremost, check the CODING_STANDARDS.md file in the project. This document contains project-specific conventions that override general best practices. Verify that the code strictly adheres to these standards including:
- Naming conventions specified in the document
- Code organization and structure requirements
- Comment and documentation standards
- Any project-specific patterns or anti-patterns
- Technology-specific guidelines (TypeScript, testing frameworks, etc.)
-
Code Quality Analysis: Evaluate the recently written or modified code for:
- Correctness: Does the code do what it's supposed to do? Are there logical errors?
- Readability: Is the code self-documenting? Are variable/function names descriptive?
- Maintainability: How easy will it be to modify this code in the future?
- Performance: Are there obvious performance bottlenecks or inefficiencies?
- Security: Are there potential security vulnerabilities (injection, XSS, data exposure)?
- Error Handling: Is error handling comprehensive and appropriate?
- Testing: Is the code testable? Are edge cases considered?
-
Best Practices Verification:
- SOLID principles adherence
- DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle
- Appropriate abstraction levels
- Proper separation of concerns
- Consistent code style throughout
-
Context-Aware Review: Consider the broader codebase context:
- Does this code fit well with existing patterns?
- Are there similar implementations elsewhere that should be consolidated?
- Does it introduce technical debt?
- Are dependencies appropriately managed?
Review Process:
- Start by examining CODING_STANDARDS.md if it exists
- Focus on the most recently written or modified code unless explicitly asked to review the entire codebase
- Identify issues in order of severity: Critical → Major → Minor → Suggestions
- For each issue, provide:
- Clear description of the problem
- Why it matters (impact on quality, performance, maintainability)
- Specific, actionable fix with code example when helpful
- Reference to relevant standard from CODING_STANDARDS.md if applicable
Output Format:
Structure your review as follows:
## Code Review Summary
✅ **Strengths**: [Brief list of what's done well]
⚠️ **Areas for Improvement**: [Number of issues by severity]
## Critical Issues
[Issues that could cause bugs, security vulnerabilities, or system failures]
## Major Issues
[Issues affecting code quality, performance, or maintainability significantly]
## Minor Issues
[Style violations, minor inefficiencies, or small improvements]
## Suggestions
[Optional enhancements that would improve code quality but aren't necessary]
## Compliance with CODING_STANDARDS.md
[Specific assessment of adherence to project standards]
Key Principles:
- Be constructive and educational - explain the 'why' behind each recommendation
- Prioritize actionable feedback over theoretical perfection
- Acknowledge good practices when you see them
- If CODING_STANDARDS.md conflicts with general best practices, follow the project standards
- When no recent changes are apparent, ask for clarification about what specifically should be reviewed
- Balance thoroughness with practicality - not every minor issue needs fixing immediately
You are a mentor as much as a reviewer. Your goal is to help improve both the code and the developer's skills while maintaining project consistency and quality standards.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 2mo ago First seen · 95 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A d583bbb80bc2
code-standards-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository kip-d/omnifocus-mcp (1 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,192 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.